Balls strikes at delicate Clegg
David Blackburn 4:16pm
Ed Balls has been biding his time on Control Orders, but now he has struck. Writing on
his blog, he appealed for consensus on this ‘sensitive issue’.
‘I have told Theresa May that, wherever possible, I will support her over the counter-terrorism measures that must be taken in the national interest – and we will play our part in building a new consensus for the future… that’s what a responsible Opposition should do.’
Balls knows that May favours retaining Control Orders, so perhaps this is a subtle endorsement of her position against the Lib Dems. He continues, conceding that he does not possess the facts. (The Home Secretary, of course, does).
‘The decisions we take in this area should be determined above all by what the evidence shows. That’s why over the last few months I’ve been talking to experts on all sides of the debate. But without seeing all the evidence for myself and seeing the conclusions of the review, I don’t think it is right for the Opposition to set out a definitive view.'
Seemingly magnanimous, and then he cuts loose:
‘The same approach should apply to government ministers too…To jump to a pre-ordained conclusion without the necessary evidence or confidence…is not the responsible way to proceed. Indeed, to talk about this issue in terms of ‘deals’ and ‘compromises’ that must be struck or ‘victories’ for a particular part of the coalition is surely the wrong way to protect the national interest.
That’s why I am so concerned about the extraordinary briefings and counter-briefings – from different parts of the coalition government – which we have seen in the media over the last few days, with Nick Clegg summing up the confusion on his visit to Oldham yesterday when he said “no deal is done”.
Nick Clegg’s slip reveals what I always feared – that the future of Control Orders has become a political tussle about keeping the coalition together, with a ‘crisis summit’ apparently being convened in order to try to reach some sort of political deal.’
Balls is too clever by half. Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister and vital to the formation of coalition policy: of course he’ll have seen the evidence! But the point stands: the future of Control Orders should not be determined by a political deal. So, Balls on song as an opposition politician once again; in acute contrast to Ed Miliband’s earlier effort on the Jeremy Vine Show.
UPDATE: How bizarre. Now Balls has added that Mi5 and Scotland Year have told him they favour retaining control orders. James Kirkup reports, noting that it seems odd of the security services to be briefing the opposition. Odd indeed, especially as Balls explicitly stated that he hadn't heard the evidence in the blog referred to above. My those spooks move quickly, unless, that is, someone's been telling porkies.
Previous
David Lindsay
January 6th, 2011 4:27pm Report this commentThose who remain in the Labour Party should, even at this late stage, see it for what it is: the only party still in favour of control orders, identity cards, a national DNA database, very prolonged detention without charge (not trial, charge), and all the rest of it. Time to start again elsewhere. Roll on electoral reform.
DavidDP
January 6th, 2011 4:27pm Report this commentAs you actually point out, Balls is being just as political in his position.
The fact this authoritarian profligate is no longer in power really is something to rejoice over.
Vulture
January 6th, 2011 4:30pm Report this commentOf course Balls wants to hammer a bloody great wedge into the Coaliton's fissures for his own petty political reasons rather than for any concern for national security.
On this issue however - and how it pains me to say so - the bullying Balls is right, as is Theresa May, MI5 and ever previous Home Secretary; and Dave, Nick & the liberal bleeding hearts who want to coddle our would-be killers are wrong.
Restricting the freedom of alien terrorists and their sympathisers is a small price to pay to lessen the chances of innocents being blown apart in our streets.
If they don't like it, the door is open for them to depart whence they came. The saloon bar wisdom is correct: if they don't like it here they can f**k off back to Yemen, Afghanistan or whatever other medieval Islamic hellhole they crawled out from.
And bloody good riddence.
Tiberius
January 6th, 2011 4:32pm Report this commentNo member of the New Labour cabal has any right to lecture anyone over security. Blair's government used 90 day detention (or was it 60, or 42) as a political tool to try to portray the Tories in opposition as weak on security.
I would hope someone will ram that down Balls' throat.
James
January 6th, 2011 4:36pm Report this commentWhereas Balls comments may be politically shrewd. I think he is 100% wrong on the politics of this.
Civil liberties and the need for protecting society are in this instance in direct conflict. The answer is as much political as it is based on evidence. You could make the UK 100% safe and 100% illiberal by locking up everyone - obviously no one wants that - but where the line is drawn is as much about personal conviction as it is about risk.
On this issue a balance needs to be struck - and it isn't done by solely listening to the worst fears of the security services.
Chris lancashire
January 6th, 2011 4:46pm Report this commentVulture: I doubt Balls is right on this; he's been wrong on everything else.
Wrong on the economy
Wrong on debt (so what?)
Wrong on the defecit
Wrong on academies
and so on.
So, if you think Balls is right it'll be a first.
David Dee
January 6th, 2011 4:53pm Report this commentEd knows that Nick 'two doors' Clegg is the weak link in this cobbled together coalition and he was right to bide his time and choose a subject where Clegg is at odds with the world to show just what an astute politician he is and what a lightweight politician Clegg, who allowed the use of a ministerial car to enable him to swallow all his principles, really is.
Like Cameron and the rest of the coalition, Clegg finds himself in a position far above his ability and how it shows. The sooner the Lib/Dems come to their senses, dump Clegg and with him this pantomime government !!!!
Bloody Bill Brock
January 6th, 2011 5:05pm Report this commentThis really is a bloody mess. The outfit that allowed these terrorist scum into Britain in the first place and signed up to a "human rights" agenda that prevents them from being deported, now want to be tough guys on security. Perhaps a few hundred thousand fewer Muslims in Britain would be a good start in eradication of this threat to Britain.
Page n' Plant
January 6th, 2011 5:57pm Report this commentPhewww, I was wondering what had happened to the Country's most utterly dishonest individual. How reassuring that he pops up for a new year bout of lies and distortion.
Senor Frizby
January 6th, 2011 5:57pm Report this commentI'm impressed you read his blog. I thought it must be the material reserved for the damned!
denis cooper
January 6th, 2011 6:31pm Report this commentA lot of this is missing a more important and more uncomfortable point, which is that there are probably much larger numbers of British citizens who would equally well satisfy the criteria for the imposition of control orders if it wasn't for the fact they are British citizens.
I've no problem with deporting undesirable aliens, considering that we have more than enough of our own homegrown undesirables without having to put up with foreign undesirables as well.
And I'd have no problem with Parliament expressly legislating that certain classes of particularly undesirable aliens could be deported by order of the Home Secretary without any possibility of appeal to British courts on claimed human rights grounds, "notwithstanding any provision of the Human Rights Act 1998".
So if the deportation order was based upon the classification of an alien as a known or suspected grave threat to national security then there could be no appeal on the grounds that deportation could lead to infringement of his human rights.
But that would still leave us with the problem of the British citizens who are known or suspected to represent a similarly grave threat to national security but who cannot be deported, meaning that they must be left at large in the country while being kept under whatever level of surveillance can be afforded.
Woody
January 6th, 2011 6:36pm Report this commentWhat the coalition need to do is shut up for a few months until they get their policies sorted out and stop drip feeding the media.
TrevorsDen
January 6th, 2011 6:45pm Report this commentMs May may be in favour of control orders - but what use are they?
Say to the security services and indeed the police, 'should we lock anybody we like up without trial' and I will give you all one guess what the answer will be.
There are lots of people we can put in jail if we use the evidence we have against them. Who is stopping that? the security services.
There is nothing clever about Balls.
Nicholas
January 6th, 2011 7:12pm Report this commentNow what is it that photo reminds me of? The only thing missing is an armband.
But if it wasn't for dear old UKIP this neo-fascist slimeball wouldn't even be in parliament.
Simon Stephenson
January 6th, 2011 7:27pm Report this commentBalls? Telling porkies?
Surely not.
stereodog
January 6th, 2011 9:26pm Report this commentI say this over and over again but the police and security forces are not imparital arbiters but unions lobbying for easier terms for their members. If you give in on control orders they won't suddenly say 'Oh well that should do thanks', they'll ask for the next thing that makes their job easier. There's nothing wrong with this, everyone from bankers to postmen do it, but neither is it dishonourable to draw the line somewhere.
charles hercock
January 6th, 2011 9:28pm Report this commentThis emphasises what a shrewd mover is Ed Balls.Have no doubt folks that he will eclipse and replace Lightweight Ed. Then the Coalition will really have a fight
David Ossitt
January 7th, 2011 4:34pm Report this commentcharles hercock
“This emphasises what a shrewd mover is Ed Balls. Have no doubt folks that he will eclipse and replace Lightweight Ed. Then the Coalition will really have a fight”
A shrewd mover, wrong.
Eclipse and replace lightweight Ed, wrong.
Then the coalition etc, wrong.
But how I dearly wish that you were right, if ever there was one individual who is a constant reminder to the public of the dreadful days under the bad mad Gordon Brown, then this tub of Marxist lard is he.
Back to top